Sure, there are plenty of people with decades of experience who haven't actually developed beyond a mid level engineer. Long stints aren't proof that somebody is skilled. The point is that short stints are a worrisome thing on resumes at some point. Not a hard line - if I've got a personal relationship with somebody or strong recommendations from people I deeply trust it changes things. But somebody coming into a leadership role needs a lot of time to even understand an organization well enough to propose changes, let alone see those changes through.
"Some new director showed up, reorged us, and left" is a failure mode for organizations. It causes huge problems and needs to be avoided.
That used to be called a 'seagull manager' - one who flies in, sh*ts on everything and flies away.
Re:Downturn career decisions
by thrwyoilarticle on Monday September 26, 2022 @10:12AM
(#32983333)
>Unrelated: today is on the news that Unilever's CEO will be resigning after 3 years, which also seems short to me.
Wait til you hear about Australian Prime Ministers
I am saying they are independent concepts. Basically, if you stay for one year it is not possible to learn the effects of longer projects (very valid point you mention). _But_, staying 10 years does not mean necessarily that you did learn from 2-3 years cycles. It will be _possible_. It could mean you are very good at deflecting, coasting, or playing golf with the right people, among many other possibilities.
Unrelated: today is on the news that Unilever's CEO will be resigning after 3 years, which also seems short to me.